[UPDATE Friday afternoon: Here’s Hawaii’s emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hawaii argues that Judge Walton was obligated to resolve the clarification motion himself. The State asks the court of appeals to “enjoin the Government’s unlawful conduct or, in the alternative, order the District Court to issue an order clarifying the scope of the injunction.”]
[UPDATE Friday morning, July 7: The Hawaii plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit–presumably instead of directly making a motion in the Supreme Court in the first instance.]
[UDATE Thursday evening, July 6: Judge Watson has denied the plaintiffs’ motion for clarification of the scope of the injunction, on the ground that the plaintiffs are seeking an interpretation of a Supreme Court opinion, indeed, a unilateral modification of the injunction “authored by the Supreme Court” itself–and thus the Supreme Court itself ought to be tribunal to explain what it meant. Presumably the plaintiffs will now move the Supreme Court for clarification of its own order. The briefing in Hawaii, linked below, reflects the arguments we are likely to see in the Supreme Court shortly. Further details from Lyle Denniston here.]
* * * *
The briefing is now complete on the Hawaii plaintiffs’ motion to clarify the scope of the preliminary injunction after the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the case is in Judge Watson’s hands.
Here’s the motion itself.
The amicus brief filed by the ACLU on behalf of the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS).
The government’s response.
The plaintiffs’ reply.
On the question whether refugees are covered when a resettlement agency has provided them a “formal assurance”–a question of great practical significance over these next three months–see also Alex Aleinikoff’s earlier post, and recent posts by Peter Margulies here and here.